Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states: “A military target is any target that, if attacked, would damage the military competence/fitness of the other side.”

Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 23.

The manual further states:

A military target for attack is a target that, through its nature, content or use would make an effective contribution to the military actions of the other side, and the neutralisation thereof would give the attacker a clear military advantage. A soldier is an obvious military target, while a little girl playing on the swings in the playground is certainly not. A clear military target is, for example, an enemy position and a clear civilian target is a playground. However, in between these two extremes lie a whole spectrum of examples that are less clear-cut. For example, a factory that produces steel and that is used to built tanks, and a factory that produces the raw materials used in the production of gunpowder. Discussions regarding the distinction between military and non-military targets, and how far it might [be] possible to stretch the limits are very extensive in the modern era. These questions intensified during World War II, when air forces were involved in the extensive bombing of infrastructure. In that war the definition of a military target became overextended and were also applied to telecommunications centres, steel factories, power stations, strategic installations and more.

Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, pp. 23–24.

The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).

According to the Report on the Practice of Israel, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have no generally applicable definition of what constitutes a “military target”, but their practice most closely reflects the definition found in Article 52(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.

Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Answers to additional questions on Chapter 1.3.

In 2006, Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:

The generally accepted definition of “military objective” is that set out in Article 52(2) Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, which provides:

Insofar as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which, by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

This definition has been criticized by some for being too narrow, and failing to pay sufficient attention to war sustaining capability, including economic targets.

In 2007, Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated in a diplomatic note:

Legitimate military objectives

The generally accepted definition of “military objective” is that set out in Article 52(2) Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, which provides:

Insofar as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which, by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

Regarding military targets, the IDF’s [Israel Defense Forces’] “Law of War on the Battlefield” provides: “A military target subject to attack is a target that by its nature, location, purpose or use effectively contributes to the military campaign of the other side, and its neutralization will offer a clear military advantage to the attacking side.”

In 2008, in a background paper on Israel’s operations in Gaza, Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:

The generally accepted definition of “military objective” is that set out in Article 52(2) of [the 1977] Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, which provides:

Insofar as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.

In 2009, in a report on Israeli operations in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009 (the “Gaza Operation”, also known as “Operation Cast Lead”), Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in referring to the definition of a “military objective” contained in Article 52(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, stated: “The determination of what is a lawful ‘military objective’ turns on an assessment of ‘military advantage’.”

Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, § 101.

The report also stated: “Judging military advantage with respect to a target evaluated during combat is not an exercise in hindsight. The perspective is that of the commander in the field at the time of a targeting decision, with the information then available.”

Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, § 102.